I'm debating between the 135 and the 100 macro. I'm torn between the two. Any thoughts. I'll be using for portraits?
13732
I LOVE the 135. I replaced my 70-200 and upgraded (in my opinion) to the 135. I use it as my only long lens for weddings. For reg. portraits I use the 85 1.8 and it is phenomenal.
13733
135. The macro is a great lens and opens up so much more photography. However if you are specializing in portraits you may not NEED a macro. Shots with the 135 are surreal and have the most beautiful bokeh. The macro is close but not the same. Also for event or wedding photography, the 135 makes for a sharp lens that gives you a farther reach, especially if you use prime lenses during the ceremony.
13734
You did not mention if you use a FF camera or a crop sensor. That will have an impact on focal length. Without knowing much about your shooting style or long term plan, I would recommend getting the 135 if you have a FF body and the 100 if you are on a crop sensor.
13735
If you don't absolutely need macro, go for the 135. I like it way better for portraits. I actually just purchased he 100L macro but it is specifically for newborn details and wedding details. I'll keep my 135 for portraits every time.
728068
I would say yes, and I can get sharp images at 300mm but usually need to prop it on something to stop it down for best results. The macro is great, and for the money I think you can't go wrong.
2110561
I have this problem But I don't understand your solution, Bruce. Could you or someone explain it again please? You appear to be saying that if the camera is at something like a standard focal length you can choose both Macro and MF. But you can't - not on mine anyway! In my experience, the camera will not focus below 1ft. The image stays blurred and often the yellow central focus frame will display a question mark. Auto-focus does not work in Macro either - so to all practical purposes the camera has no Macro mode. If someone has a fix for this I'd be very interested.
101689
I don't have enough information yet....what other lenses do you own, and what camera would you be shooting with? Are you the main photographer? Are you bringing lights or at least a high(er) powered flash unit? This is a great lens for macro use, but with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 this cannot be considered a fast lens at all. While a 50mm lens is fantastic for shooting in a more photojournalistic style, you will probably want something a little longer for portraits (especially if you're using a full-frame digital or film camera). Please respond with what camera(s) you'll be using and what other lenses you own and I'll give you more detail
1449108
Hi I am using 18-300 with D 7100. Results are amazing. Check out the site of Ken Rockwell. Its very good for reviews and compatibility questions like this. ~ menon
723759
I found the macro capability as outstanding. However to get good results you'll need to shoot in manual mode and understand some of the basic setups and lighting conditions. Different situations require using different settings.
477810
It's a very nice portrait lens but how you are going to use a 120mm lens for landscape It depends on you you!! The Lens is a perfect Macro lens and I love to have it with me whenever I use my EM5.
916480
It depends on what you like to shoot. I am a novice to the photography game and I have several lenses in my arsenal. I own the 100mm macro, 17-40mm L, 17-55mm, 70-200mm f4L and the 50mm 1.8. My favorite two are the 100mm macro and the 70-200. Both give me sharp crisp images. I tend not to use the 50mm much any more. If I needed that focal lenght I would chose the 17-55 which is fast, great in low and the images are superb. For a general vacation lens combo, I take the 17-55 and the 70-200mm.
1630950
It's not fair to make the comparison between these two kind of lenses in my opinion as each has its own forte and fulfills a different function. If you want both portrait work and macro then you should get the 100mm macro. While you can use the 50mm for portrait work, it is more suited for full body portrait. For closeup, the 100mm is better (less distortion). Of course you can use just about any lens for any application...some just won't perform very well. With the 100mm, it would be very tough to take landscape pictures (wide angle scenics shots). The 50mm would be better (though not ideal for your T2i which has a 1.6x crop factor). If you must have only one lens, I'd go for the 50mm.
1763824
With flowers it will work very well, with insects you may want a macro a bit longer. As for quality it is superb, but like all lenses one must use sense. There is no such thing as a one does everything lens.
1891735
I love this lens for portraits. The focus may be a little slower than a dedicated 105mm being that its macro but there's a switch you can hit to keep the lens from searching for focus in the macro regions. That allows it to focus a little faster for portraits and other non macro work.
659561
I would suggest getting the 105 mm macro if you want a true macro for closeup photography with any Nikon camera. I've used this lens for four years and have been extremely satisfied with sharpness and bokeh. At extreme macro settings, autofocus should be turned off, as it has difficulty searching for focal points. A 1:1 macro ratio is achieved when end of lens is approximately 5 1/2 inches from the subject.
838886
I find the 85mm a bit faster in focusing *if* you're a fair amount of distance from your subject, as is intended with what's essentially a portrait lens. If you try to squeeze a macro shot out of it, the auto-focus just grinds back and forth trying to get a lock. That said, I have an older model 50mm 1.4 and never found the speed of focus (with a D3S and D800) to be outrageously slow, so take that into consideration with my answer.
2201490
the macro is very good, you can see veins on a flower less than an inch across. The only issue I found is with lighting, when you are shooting macros in low light, the onboard flash will be partially blocked...in these cases, I back up a few inches and crop in post production, you don't lose much if any definition. It is also very touchy about focusing in tight spaces, a trick I have used is to use my fingers beside my subject, focus on my fingers then move the camera while holding the focus. all that aside, I love this camera, it truly does it all...macro to sports. Highly recommend. the macro is very good, you can see veins on a flower less than an inch across. The only issue I found is with lighting, when you are shooting macros in low light, the onboard flash will be partially blocked...in these cases, I back up a few inches and crop in post production, you don't lose much if any definition. It is also very touchy about focusing in tight spaces, a trick I have used is to use my fingers beside my subject, focus on my fingers then move the camera while holding the focus. all that aside, I love this camera, it truly does it all...macro to sports. Highly... » Read More the macro is very good, you can see veins on a flower less than an inch across. The only issue I found is with lighting, when you are shooting macros in low light, the onboard flash will be partially blocked...in these cases, I back up a few inches and crop in post production, you don't lose much if any definition. It is also very touchy about focusing in tight spaces, a trick I have used is to use my fingers beside my subject, focus on my fingers then move the camera while holding the focus. all that aside, I love this camera, it truly does it all...macro to sports. Highly recommend. « Show Less
1249482
Two totally different lenses. I wouldn't even try messing with the 100mm macro for portraits, but the 50mm 1.4 is one of the best portrait lenses you can get for a cropped camera like yours. Caveat - I haven't tried non-Canon branded lenses.
873523
If you're going to take many photos of people you might want to go the 18-140. It is better for portraits. The 55-300 is awesome for scenery but its tough to use for close personal shots.
773131
I would say get the 18-55 and use the $150 difference toward a 55-250 while you are starting out. You will probably want something longer than 135mm regardless, and depending on how far you go with your photography, there may come a point where none of the three lenses mentioned in this post is "good enough" anymore. ;)